On July 19, the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s presidential independent petition requirement. De La Fuente v Padilla, 17-56668. The decision is only ten pages and did not mention any of the precedents that suggest the California law is too difficult, except that it did mention the Georgia 2016 decision. However, it erroneously says that the Georgia precedent is different because Georgia had not permitted any minor parties to be on the ballot. This is not true; Georgia allowed the New Alliance Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party to be on the ballot for president. Here is the decision.
The decision does not mention any of the evidence that was in the record, showing that a requirement of almost 200,000 signatures is not needed to keep the ballot from being too crowded. That evidence showed that states that require over 5,000 signatures never have a crowded ballot, if “crowded ballot” is defined as an election with more than eight candidates. The decision does not mention that no one has used the procedure since 1992. The decision does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court’s admonition in Storer v Brown and Mandel v Bradley that procedures that are seldom used are probably unconstitutionally difficult.
The decision does not mention the fact that no candidate in California, except presidential independents, ever need more than 7,000 signatures. That is the requirement for candidates for other statewide office who choose not to pay the filing fee. The decision does not mention that the U.S. Supreme Court said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states should have easier access for president than for other office.
The decision is by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who has established a record of great hostility toward minor party and independent candidate voting rights. She has authored opinions upholding severe ballot access laws in Arizona and California, and also she agreed with a decision upholding the Arizona practice of printing the names of only the Democratic and Republican Parties on the voter registration forms even though there were other ballot-qualified parties. She is a Clinton appointee.
The decision is also signed by Judge A. Wallace Tashima and Judge John Clifford Wallace.
Over the decades I’ve read in BAN that a judicial ruling/reasoning misstates history &/or some legal precedent at the expense of independents & minor parties. Gosh, has any such judicial mistake ever been rendered to FAVOR indies & minors?
Not that I can remember. Generally when a judge writes an opinion striking down a law, the judge does more careful work.
One of the worst judicial errors was in Jenness v Fortson in the US Supreme Court in 1971. During the oral argument, Chief Justice Burger said he remembered that opponents of US Senator George Norris of Nebraska deliberately qualified another candidate named George Norris as an independent, in order to confuse the voters and divide his vote. Actually the people who did that qualified another George Norris in the Republican primary, not as an independent candidate. But when Justice Stewart wrote the decision, he listed a single sentence as the state interest in severe ballot access laws, and one of the three reasons in that sentence was to prevent “deception”. No brief or other reference in the case had referred to “deception”, so obviously he swallowed Burger’s error and referred to it inaccurately.
ONE more DISASTER due to the same olde rotted so-called thinking in the same olde rotted brains of USELESS MORON ballot access so-called lawyers.
*******
Equal Ballot Access Brief, 14 NOV 2018
The fundamental constitutional principle of SEPARATE-IS-NOT-EQUAL in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954), was unfortunately N-O-T brought up in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) — the first *modern* ballot access case in SCOTUS.
Every State has SEPARATE and UNEQUAL ballot access laws for the candidates of —
(1) so-called major parties,
(2) old so-called minor parties,
(3) new so-called minor parties and
(4) independents. [Specify for State involved].
Also, the following basic points have not been properly noticed —
(1) there is ONE class of electors in a general election,
(2) there is ONE class of candidates on the general election ballots (i.e. a candidate is on or off the ballots) and
(3) each general election for each office is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior general election — for such office (or any other office) — or any other thing since 4 July 1776 — EXCEPT the number of actual voters at the prior general election in the election area of the office involved — for having EQUAL nominating petitions at the next election (see below).
A-L-L ballot access cases have failed to note such basic points including —
Williams,
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971),
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974),
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986),
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) and
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008).
[I.E. suggest/demand that ALL of the cases beginning with Williams be overruled.]
The Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amendment, Sec. 1 requires that all INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME election area pass the SAME (i.e. *EQUAL*) test(s) for ballot access to get on state or local general election ballots.
Obviously an *EQUAL* nominating petition for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area will show which INDIVIDUAL candidates have a preliminary showing of voter support — or EQUAL filing fees.
See also Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (equal regional treatment of electors who sign petitions) and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-636 (1996) (discrimination against homosexuals).
The Moore case was noted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000).
—-
The cases can be seen via—
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
Demo Rep is unjust to the hard-working ballot access attorneys. Demo Rep had his own pro se lawsuits on ballot access, and they always lost also.
The modern ROT started in Williams v Rhodes 1968 — a bit before RW and me.
How much RW connection with the De La Fuente v Padilla DISASTER ???
How many of the losing cases are due to Richard Winger’s *advice* / *research* to the various JUNK MORON BRAIN DEAD so-called ballot access case lawyers with their BAAAAD LOSING *arguments* since whenever — circa 1980 [???]
I submitted evidence showing that if a state requires more than 5,000 signatures, it will never have a crowded ballot, if “crowded” means more than 8 candidates for a particular office. No one criticized my evidence or found any fault with it. It was simply ignored.
That same evidence is what won the Georgia Green Party presidential ballot access case in 2016. Also, that same evidence is what won injunctive relief against the Michigan 30,000-signature requirement in the Graveline case, which is reported at 336 F Supp 3d 801. Also my evidence was cited in the winning Libertarian Party Arkansas ballot access decision of July 3, 2019. And my evidence was cited in the winning Ohio Libertarian Party case in 2013, although the Judge spelled my surname “Wagner” instead of “Winger.”
The 1968 ROT was based on the original ROT in 1888-1890 – official ballot machinations –
with *grandfather* ballot access ROT for the Donkeys and Elephants
— early on subversion of 14-1 EPC
— long before RW and me
— with, of course, nonstop Donkey/Elephant SCOTUS HACKS in all *political* cases.
Thus – some sort of RW win/loss pct stuff in ballot access cases –
esp ALL cases that got to SCOTUS ???
Judges like these that can’t keep themselves from showing political bias should be disbarred and removed from office.
What USA judge is NOT an appointed robot party HACK in any *political* case —
ballot access
gerrymanders
– ie ALL election law cases.
Same for ALL State judges having ANY political party connections.
—
PR and NONPARTISAN Exec/Judic Appv and TOTSOP
Wow! Demo Rep is a LAWYER!? Who knew!!!! (Except for Richard!)
CL- Sorry
You assume too much.
Would NOT put up with the statist control freaks in so-called law skoools filled with mostly Donkey communist profs — esp. since 1929-1941 – Great Depression I commies and their stooge replacements – esp in the 1960s – Vietnam War era.
—
EQUAL ballot access laws
PR and NONPARTISAN Exec/Judic Appv and TOTSOP
Future losses will be fewer pages in court ops –
just a cite to the 9 Cir piece of junk filled with the junk adjectives —
compelling, severe, minimal, important, etc etc etc.
USELESS so-called lawyers and much evil worse HACK so-called judges not citing USA Const 14-1 EQUAL Protection clause.
History note –
14-1 EPC also for Republicans (open and undercover) in ex-slave States after the Civil War I.
How many seconds to open start of USA Civil W-A-R II ???
— between RED communist control freak statists and BLUE fascist control freak statists.
See Spain 1931-1936 and CIVIL WAR 1936-1939 — still recovering.
See the raving Trump mouth / tweet *brain* about leftist Donkeys.
@RW,
Have any profession ballot-access attorneys, hard working or not, ever made the argument the argument that Demo Rep, is making – that it is inherently discriminatory and a violation of equal protection to classify candidacies as major party, minor party, new party, or independent?
What is the interest of the State of California other than to keep those who write the laws in power?